Appeal No. 2005-0285 6
Application No. 09/881,675
device as shown for example by Okamoto...(see Fig, 1 and col. 3,
lines 3-15) to prevent spiking in the junction between the
emitter electrode and the silicon substrate, to obtain low
resistance ohmic contact and to serve as an excellent diffusion
barrier between aluminum and silicon” (answer-pages 4-5).
Therefore, concludes the examiner, it would have been
obvious to have selected either one of molybdenum silicide or
titanium nitride as a suitable barrier material for the barrier
metal layer of the modified Sakurai structure, “since it has been
held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to
select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the
intended use as a matter of design choice” (answer-page 5).
For their part, appellants contend that the examiner has
failed to establish the obviousness of a barrier metal layer
formed between the emitter electrode and the interlayer
insulating film and including a layer containing nitrogen, and
that the examiner has not provided a sufficient motivation for
making the proposed combination.
We agree with the examiner that the subject matter of claims
1-3, and 5 would have been obvious, within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. §103, based on the applied references.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007